DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

1.            Smt. Jitender Kumar Bedi, S/o Sh. S.R. Bedi, resident of House No.1022, Sector -40-B, Chandigarh.

2.            Mrs. Uma Bedi, Wife of Sh. Jitender Kumar Bedi, resident of House No.1022, Sector 40-B, Chandigarh.

3.            Jatin Bedi, son of Sh. Jitender Kumar Bedi, resident of House No.1022, Sector 40-B, Chandigarh.

                                                                                    ---Complainants

V E R S U S

1]       Jet Airways (India) Ltd. having its Local Office at Civil Airport, Chandigarh-160 001, through Manager, Chandigarh office, Civil Airport, Chandigarh.

2]          Bharat Travel ‘N’ Tours (Regd.), S.C.O: 87-88, Sector-34-A, Chandigarh, through its proprietor Vijay Narula.

---Opposite Parties

BEFORE:            MRS.MADHU MUTNEJA                   PRESIDING MEMBER

                        SH.JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU            MEMBER

Argued By:      Sh. Munish Joshi, Advocate for the Complainants.

Ms Ritu Sharma, Advocate for the OP-1.

OP-2 already exparte.

PER JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU, MEMBER

1.             Complainants (hereinafter referred to as CCs for short) has filed the present complaint against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as OPs for short), on the grounds that the CCs are the members of one family unit, who had booked a tour package from OP-2, which included their entire journey from Chandigarh to Singapore and back. That the schedule was planned in such a way that they together could travel from Chandigarh to Singapore via Bombay and return from Singapore to Chandigarh via Delhi.  Each ticket of this tour was offered for Rs.27,200/- only by OP-2. The said air travel was confirmed through OP-1, as while returning from Delhi to Chandigarh the time for the journey suited their plan as they could attend to their work on 04.10.2010. The said journey from New Delhi to Chandigarh was scheduled for 7:30 AM departure time on 04.10.2010.

                The CCs having paid the respective amount for the package tour were offered a confirmed electronic generated ticket, the same annexed C-5. The receipt of money by OP-2 is also evident from Annex.C-1 to C-3.

                That the rest of scheduled tour went off as per the plan, however, on reaching Delhi, on their return from Singapore, on 04.10.2010 at 0215 hrs, CCs had to wait for few hours to board their flight, which was to depart at 7:30 hrs. on 04.10.2010 from IGI Terminal-I. But, while the CCs inquired about the departure of their concerned flight No. 9W2203, were shocked to know that the said flight has been cancelled and no reason was assigned by OP-1 for the same.

                It is alleged by the CCs that OP-1 did not inform them about the said cancellation before hand and the only alternative at that point of time that was offered was a flight in the evening at 4:10 PM on 04.10.2010.  It is also alleged that as the CCs did not wish to wait for so long and they had pressing engagements at Chandigarh to attend to, demanded the refund, but OP-1 offered Rs.500/- per head, which according to the CCs was the pittance, and no where close to what they charged for the said tickets.  The CCs, in order to reach Chandigarh, had to hire a Taxi and paid Rs.3,000/- to the Taxi Operator.  Thus, alleging harassment and inconvenience as they had to travel by road, which also resulted into loss of precious time. 

                CCs contacted the OP-2, after their return to Chandigarh, but received no response with regard to the refund of the air fare to the extent of journey from Delhi to Chandigarh, which they could not take up.  The CCs are aggrieved due to the non-refund of the air fare, nor the OPs co-operated in helping the CCs with the said refund. Hence, alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs, seek the relief of refund of the air fare of their missed journey from Delhi to Chandigarh, along with compensation of Rs.50,000/- for harassment; Rs.3,000/- towards cost of road travel from Delhi to Chandigarh, along with Rs.11,000/- as litigation costs.    

2.              On notice, OP No.1 filed their version. However, OP-2 made appearance initially, but failed to file reply/ version and due to continuous absence, was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 27 July, 2011.

3.              OP-1 has preferred para wise reply to the present complaint and submits as under:  

                 OP-1 in para-1 has taken the objection that the present complaint is not maintainable as the transaction falls in the category of commercial clause hence be dismissed on this very ground. Reason being that the CCs have themselves admitted to have under taken the journey for the professional assignment of their daughter. Para-2 is denied for want of knowledge.

                Furthermore, OP-1 has denied the fact that OP-2 is their authorized agent; whereas, it is also contested that the tickets vide which the CCs made their travel were issued by Janta Travels Pvt. Limited and not by OP-2 as OP-2 is not an authorized agent of OP-1 and furthermore, OP-1 has alleged that CCs have failed to enclose the copy of tickets with their complaint, also that Paras 4 to 7 of the complaint do not require any reply as the same are formal in nature.

                OP-1 has mainly contested the claim of the CC while replying to Para 8 of the complaint, wherein it is mentioned that the scheduled flight No. 9W2203 that was to leave Delhi for Chandigarh on 4.10.10 at 0730 hrs. was not available due to operational difficulty, hence, the scheduled change was carried out on 21.9.2010 at 1913 hrs and the flight 9W 2203 was combined with flight No. 9W 2330 (STD) Scheduled Time of Departure 1610 hrs of 4.10.2010.  It is further stated that as the PNR record did not mention the contact number of the CCs, hence the scheduled change could not be conveyed to the CCs.  However, a message to the concerned Travel Agent was also made, but the travel agent too, was not successful in conveying the same for similar reasons. OP-1 has also stated that it was well within its right to make such scheduled changes and the same is included in the terms and conditions, a copy of which is annexed as Annex.C of their reply. OP-1 has also cited Rule 19 of Carriage by Air Act, 1972 that the carrier is not liable for damage occasioned by delay in carriage by air of passenger, baggage or cargo. It is further stated that there was no cancellation of the flight, but the same was scheduled to depart at 1610 hrs Instead of 0730 hrs. 

                OP-1 has also contested the claim of the CC whether any alternate arrangement, if required, was to be made by them, because in this particular case it is not the case that the flight did not operate at all and in such circumstances only the taxes amounting to Rs.1829/- could be refunded and that too after the submission of the tickets to the travel agent, who had issued them.  Hence, denying any failure on their part, OP-1 prays for the dismissal of the present complaint with costs. 

4.             Having gone through the entire complaint, version of the OPs, the evidence of the parties and with the able assistance of the ld. Counsel for the parties, we have come to the following conclusions:-

i)         Taking view of the reply of the OP-1 vide their Para No. 1 of their version, we feel that the stand taken by the OPs with regard to the said complaint falling under commercial purpose category is unfathomable, reason being that the true meaning of the commercial purpose as per CPA, 1986 cannot be assigned to the averments of the present complaint, as the daughter of the CC is not a party; whereas, as per the detailed facts of the present complaint though she too had traveled to Singapore, and had not made the return journey. In the present circumstances, the actual cause of action arose while the CCs on their return journey were left stranded for hours as they were not informed about the non-operation of the flight they were to board as 0730 hrs on 4.10.2010.

ii)        It is also noticed that their reply in Para 3 of their version too is a weak defense, because CC is successful in proving the fact as OP-2 being the service provider with regard to the operation of the flights and the same is proved from Annex.C-5 and as OP-1 has received money for the same, it was incumbent upon OP-1 to inform the CCs through their Agent about the said change in schedule, so that CCs could make necessary amends in their plan.

iii)       It is important to note that in their reply under para 6, OP-1 has stated that the said scheduled change was made on 21.9.2010 at 1913 hrs., meaning thereby that the scheduled change was effected 14 days before the due departure and that OP-1 was in the knowledge of this fact even 7 days prior to the departure of the CCs on their tour from Chandigarh, as the CCs left Chandigarh on Sept.27, 2010. It is evident from this information that the CCs were very much in Chandigarh and the said change could easily be conveyed to them at their residence.

iv)       It is also important to mention here that during their entire travel from 27.09.10 to 04.10.10, the CCs under took three different flights operated by OP-1 i.e. from Chandigarh to Mumbai on 27.09.2010, thereafter, from Mumbai to Singapore the same day. CCs made their return journey on 03.10.10 from Singapore to Delhi. All these three travels were made on Jet Airways flights No. 9W 2058, 9W012 & 9W017, respectively.  It is also noticed that OP-1 has failed to prove that in what manner the message was conveyed to the travel agent so that their liabilities with regard to this fact could be ignored i.e. there is neither any telephone records, nor any e-mail. Furthermore, no other means whatsoever is explained through which the said message was delivered. Hence, in the absence of any proof, we feel that OP-1 was deficient in service in not informing the CCs about the scheduled change, even though there was ample time at hand for the same.

v)        Though OP-1 is very much within its rights to cancel, re-schedule (either pre-schedule or post-schedule) the flights, but a small courtesy is very much expected from them to inform the unsuspecting passengers so that an alternative mode can be availed by them and they are not left high and dry at the eleventh hour of their planned journey.  OP-1 has also failed to address the allegation of the CCs with regard to the behavior of their ground staff at the Airport, who refused to entertain any request of the CCs with regard to the refund of the ticket fare.  Even the offer of the OP-1 to pay back Rs.1829/- as the same is a pittance as compared to the actual fare. Further it sounds as a cruel joke as the CCs who refused to take the scheduled flight at 1610 hrs on 04.10.10 for which they would had to wait for another 09 hrs  at that point of time to catch the same.  

vi)       Though the CCs claim of refund of Rs.3000/- incurred by them for traveling from Delhi to Chandigarh by Taxi cannot be looked into, as the same being consequential loss.  Whereas, the CCs has brought on record a copy of e-ticket which mentions the price of the ticket from New Delhi to Chandigarh (economy class) amounting to Rs.4705/-, which includes the break-up as base fare per traveler Rs.1171/-, total taxes payable as Rs.155/- and total charges and fees Rs.3379/-.  

5.              Hence, in the light of above observations and finding OPs deficient in service, we allow the present complaint and direct the OPs to:-    

(a) Refund the actual amount charged for the fare from Delhi to Chandigarh from the CCs.

(b) Further, OPs are burdened with a consolidated amount of compensation to the tune of Rs.10,000/-, along with Rs.7,000/- as costs of litigation.

6.              The above said order shall be complied within 30 days of its receipt; thereafter OPs shall be liable for an interest @18% per annum on the aforesaid amount, except for litigation expenses.  

7.                 Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

28.10.2011                                                                                Sd/-

(MADHU MUTNEJA)

PRESIDING MEMBER

                                                                                         Sd/-

 (JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)